The document discusses a study by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the World Federation of People Management Associations (WFPMA) on the relationship between people management capabilities and financial performance. Some key findings: - Companies that rated highly in people management topics like leadership development, talent management, and performance management experienced significantly higher revenue growth and profit margins. - High-performing companies differentiated themselves in these three areas. They were more likely to have leadership models tied to promotion decisions, make leadership planning part of workforce planning, and tie leader compensation to people development efforts. - They also did more to attract, develop, and retain talented people through programs for high-potential and emerging talents, and by

1. From Capability to Profitability
Realizing the Value of People Management

2. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a
global management consulting firm and
the world’s leading advisor on business
strategy. We partner with clients from the
private, public, and not-for-profit sectors
in all regions to identify their highest-
value opportunities, address their most
critical challenges, and transform their
enterprises. Our customized approach
combines deep insight into the dynamics
of companies and markets with close
collaboration at all levels of the client
organization. This ensures that our clients
achieve sustainable competitive advan-
tage, build more capable organizations,
and secure lasting results. Founded in
1963, BCG is a private company with 77
o ces in 42 countries. For more informa-
tion, please visit bcg.com.
The World Federation of People Manage-
ment Associations (WFPMA) is a global
network of professionals in people manage-
ment. It was founded in 1976 to aid the
development and improve the e ectiveness
of professional people management all
over the world. Its members are predomi-
nantly continental federations, which are
made of up of more than 90 national
personnel associations representing over
600,000 people management professionals.
For more information, please visit www.
wfpma.com.

3. From Capability to
Profitability
Realizing the Value of People Management
Rainer Strack, Jean-Michel Caye, Carsten von der Linden,
Horacio Quiros, and Pieter Haen
July

4. F C P
Good people practices confer a performance advantage. This finding is especially
important today, as companies cope with a growing talent crisis and chronic
economic uncertainty. But just how strong is the correlation to economic perfor-
mance? And what practices count the most? BCG, in partnership with the World
Federation of People Management Associations (WFPMA), recently explored this
question as part of its annual Creating People Advantage research study.
P P A T B L
Companies that are highly capable in 22 key HR topics consistently enjoyed better
economic performance than those less capable. In several topics, this correlation
was striking—up to 3.5 times the revenue growth and as much as 2.1 times the
average profit margin. So what do high-performing companies do di erently?
W D H P S O ? T B T
The high performers di erentiated themselves dramatically in three of the most
important topics: leadership development, talent management, and performance
management and rewards. Within each area, they did more, and they did so more
e ectively. Among other things, high-performing companies use incentives to
engage leaders in people development. They define talent more broadly, strive hard
to attract internationals, and nurture “emerging” potentials. And unlike their
less-successful peers, they clearly define performance norms and standards and
adopt them enterprisewide.
AT A GLANCE

5. T B C G
I the financial crisis, departmental budgets have increasingly
been allocated on the basis of return on investment. For HR departments,
quantifying the economic value of people management is a tricky proposition. Yet
now is not the time for companies to skimp on their people expenditures. With
the pressures of globalization, the growing scarcity of talent, and an employer-
employee relationship frayed by persistent economic pressures, companies
today—more than ever—must regard their human capital as an asset worthy of
continual investment.
There’s yet another compelling reason to remain committed to investing in people:
companies that do so enjoy better economic performance. Those that excel in
leadership development, talent management, and performance management, for
example, experience substantially higher revenue growth and profit margins. For
the companies that keep dedicating capital to their human capital, what is the
nature of this connection? What are they doing right?
The Boston Consulting Group and the World Federation of People Management
Associations (WFPMA) recently conducted major research to probe the relationship
between people management capabilities and financial performance. We surveyed
4,288 HR and non-HR managers on their current HR capabilities and challenges,
the strategies and approaches they use to address these challenges, and the di cul-
ties they foresee in attracting, managing, and developing people.
People Practices and the Bottom Line
Our analysis confirmed what “people” companies have long sensed: good people
practices confer a performance advantage. But just how strong is the correlation to
economic performance? As a preliminary test, we looked at Fortune magazine’s
“100 Best Companies to Work For.” Consider the average growth in share price for
these companies between 2001 and 2011. (See Exhibit 1.) The perennial “100 Best”
(that is, the companies that have made the list for three or more years) outper-
formed the S&P 500 in eight out of ten years—and over the course of the decade,
they cumulatively beat the S&P 500 by 99 percentage points.
Does this mean that good HR practices drive good performance? Or that good
performance enables good HR practices? To claim a direct cause-and-e ect link
here would be overreaching. But probing the relationship between HR practices
and business performance is a worthwhile exercise if it sheds light on those activi-
ties that seem to be particularly beneficial.

6. F C P
We then asked our BCG/WFPMA survey participants to rate their current capability in
the 22 HR topics that comprise the framework of our annual Creating People Advantage
study. Moreover, we asked them to report their company’s revenue growth from 2010
through 2011 and average profit margin in 2011. In 21 out of 22 topics, we identified a
positive correlation between capability and performance: companies that rated their
current capabilities “very high” experienced significantly greater revenue growth and
higher average profit margins than those characterizing their capabilities as “low.” (See
Exhibit 2.) Even mastering classic HR processes showed a markedly positive impact on
financial performance. These results underscore the fact that people management is a
holistic process. Because the impacts of the 22 topics are interrelated, it’s important to
excel in all of them.
High-performing companies consistently did more in all major activities within
these topics than their low-performing peers, but in certain activities their e orts
truly stood out. For six topics in particular, the correlation between capability and
economic performance was striking: recruiting, onboarding new hires and employ-
ee retention, talent management, employer branding, performance management
and rewards, and leadership development. For example, companies adept at
recruiting enjoyed 3.5 times the revenue growth and 2.0 times the profit margin of
their less capable peers. In talent management, the highly capable enjoyed more
than twice the revenue growth and profit margin of those less capable. And compa-
nies that are serious about leadership development experienced 2.1 times the
revenue growth and 1.8 times the profit margin.
This prompted the question: what concrete actions correlate with business perfor-
mance? In other words, what do the high-performing companies—the top 10 percent
by revenue growth and profit margin—do di erently from the bottom 10 percent?
Cumulative growth rate of share price (%)1
Year
–50
50
100
0
150
+109
+10
S&P 500
Companies that made
Fortune’s “100 Best
Companies to Work For”
list at least three times
in the past ten years²
+99
percentage
points
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
People companies
outperform the
market average in
eight out of ten years
Sources: 2012 BCG/WFPMA proprietary web survey and analysis.
1
Based on end-of-year closing prices.
2
Average growth rate of companies’ share prices in percent (weighted by 2001 share prices), dependent on
sample composition for each particular year.
E | “People” Companies Outperform the Market Average

7. T B C G
The People Advantage Triad
Taking into account the findings of our interviews with leading business and HR
executives across the globe, we focused on three of the outstanding six topics
identified above: leadership development, talent management, and performance
management and rewards. These three topics encompass more (and more varied)
people-management activities, thus o ering companies more levers for boosting
their performance advantage. Our quantitative survey results confirmed the impor-
tance of these topics, revealing significant di erences in the concrete actions taken
by high- versus low-performing companies. (See Exhibit 3.)
Let’s examine major di erences across these three pivotal areas.
L : M P D P
J D
High-performing companies recognize that leadership is about more than just
steering the business. It’s about nurturing, energizing, and challenging the people
who help make it run—and who keep it competitive. To sustain success, a company
Topic in which most capable and least
capable companies were compared
Delivering on recruiting
Mastering HR processes
Providing shared services and outsourcing HR
Global people management and international expansion
Enhancing employee engagement
Managing change and cultural transformation
Managing diversity and inclusion
Restructuring the organization
Managing work-life balance
Actively using web 2.0 for HR and managing associated risks
Managing an aging workforce
Managing corporate social responsibility
Delivering critical learning programs
Health and security management
Managing flexibility and labor costs
Strategic workforce planning
Transforming HR into a strategic partner
Onboarding of new hires and retention
Developing leadership
Managing talent
Performance management and rewards
Improving employer branding
… profit margin
2.0x
1.8x
1.7x
1.7x
1.6x
1.4x
1.5x
1.3x
1.2x
1.4x
1.1x
1.3x
1.4x
1.5x
1.4x
1.5x
1.4x
1.9x
1.8x
2.1x
2.0x
1.8x
… revenue growth
3.5x
1.8x
1.6x
1.8x
1.8x
1.5x
1.6x
1.2x
1.1x
1.5x
0.8x
1.5x
1.5x
1.2x
1.2x
1.4x
1.4x
2.5x
2.1x
2.2x
2.1x
2.4x
The impact that the most capable companies
achieve over the least capable companies in...
6
22
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Source: 2012 BCG/WFPMA proprietary web survey and analysis.
Note: Revenue growth and profit margin are defined as categories in the survey. For analysis, categories are transformed into category means;
extreme categories are transformed into – 20% or +20%. For each topic, we compared average revenue growth and average profit margin of
respondents who chose “5” (high capability) against those who chose “1“ (low capability).
E | Economic Influence Is Discernible in All HR Topics but Is Most Pronounced in Six
“The whole idea of
leader as coach and
facilitator will take
hold.”
Cynthia Trudell,
Chief Human Resources
O cer, PepsiCo

8. F C P
needs leaders who care about and develop their people—leaders who understand
that building a talent pipeline should extend beyond successors to top management
to include everyone whose contributions are essential to the company’s future.
Specifically, what do high-performing companies do di erently?
• They are 1.5 times more likely to have in place a leadership model that describes
expected contributions and behavior and that is grounded in company values. Such
models go beyond clichés, o ering actionable guidelines that inspire leaders—
and that leaders aspire to—daily.
• Their leadership model guides talent selection and promotion decisions—1.7 times as
o en as low-performing companies. In high-performing companies, the performance
management system is tied to the company’s business strategy and includes
leadership objectives and talent development activities. Managers are thus promot-
ed on the basis of their individual performance as well as their people-development
activities—both of which are linked to company strategy and objectives.
• They make leadership planning an integral part of their people-planning e orts 2.2
times as o en as low-performing companies. Ensuring a leadership pipeline is seen as
… treat and track
performance with
transparency
Compared with low-performing companies, high-performing companies …
… build stronger
people leaders
… do more to
attract, develop,
and retain
talented people
1.7×
1.5×
2.2×
3.4×
2.6×
2.2×
1.8×
1.4–2.7×
2.9×
#1
1.7–2.1×
as oen have clear norms that drive performance
as oen use global standards in performance management
more likely to have a leadership model that describes expected contributions
and behavior
more oen have a leadership model that drives promotion decisions
as oen make future leadership planning an integral part of people planning
as oen make their leaders’ compensation and careers dependent on their people
development efforts
as oen try to attract internationals to diversify talent
more likely to have programs for high- and emerging potentials to improve
development and retention
more likely to offer career advancement opportunities and have clearly defined
tracks to improve development and retention
as oen better than competitors in offering change of work locations
reason for workforce relocation is personal development (vs. technical knowledge
transfer, the #1 reason for low-performing companies)
Source: 2012 BCG/WFPMA proprietary web survey and analysis.
Note: High performer = top 10% of companies by profit margin and revenue growth; low performer = bottom 10% of companies by profit margin
and revenue growth.
E | In Three Key Areas, High-Performing Companies Di er Substantially from
Low-Performing Companies

9. T B C G
an ongoing practice and not an ad hoc e ort. High-performing companies embed
their leadership planning in their comprehensive strategic workforce planning.
They divide their entire workforce, from leaders to entry-level personnel, into job
families and conduct long-term supply-and-demand analysis, which they use to
plan concrete actions for their recruitment and training and development e orts.
• They make leaders’ compensation and career advancement dependent in part on
leaders’ people-development e orts—3.4 times as o en as low-performing companies
do. High-performing companies do not relegate people development to the HR
function. Instead, they view their leaders as the frontline developers of talent.
Leaders are best positioned to see people in action and to recognize, shape, and
inspire potential talent. They are also best positioned to cultivate in their direct
reports the kind of leadership traits valued by the company (and those neces-
sary for success in the twenty-first century, such as the adaptive leadership quali-
ties we’ve observed in today’s best-run companies).1
As Jordi Gaju, chief devel-
opment o cer at the Chilean retailer Falabella, says, “Every boss must become
a human resources manager.” To make sure their leaders embrace this responsi-
bility, high-performing companies link career advancement, performance
bonuses, and other rewards to leaders’ people-development activities.
T M : P , B
D R
Excellence in one critical HR area won’t compensate for shortcomings in another.
Having an attractive employer brand might help you nab the talent, but it’s not
enough to help you hold on to it. High-performing companies understand this well;
they distinguish themselves from the rest in the sheer extent of their talent-devel-
opment e orts. (For an example of the multifaceted approach to talent manage-
ment, see the sidebar “How L’Oréal Is Building a Talent Advantage.”)
They know, for example, that global talent risk is soaring, and they therefore realize
the importance of building—rather than just “buying”—talent.2
As we discussed in
the December 2011 BCG article “Make Talent, Not War,” relying too heavily on
external talent o en leads to bidding contests that can diminish the quality of new
hires, yield bad matches, increase turnover, and raise expenses.3
Mindful of the
urgency of the talent shortage, high-performing companies also accelerate critical
activities wherever possible.
According to our survey, high-performing companies capitalize on a broad array of
strategies, initiatives, methodologies, and programs to ensure they have the talent
they need, now and in the future. These e orts include the following:
• They are 1.8 times as likely as low-performing companies to try to attract interna-
tional employees. High-performing companies recognize the strategic and practi-
cal importance of diversifying the talent base. As companies’ operations and
customer bases each become more globalized, local talent that understands
local markets will give companies greater long-term competitive advantage.
Furthermore, high-performing companies’ interest in international talent
applies across the experience spectrum. These companies are 40 percent more
active in managing an international talent pool for senior leaders.
“Our employer brand
is attractive, so I’m
sure we have a lot of
talent. The problem
is, we lose many good
people because they
are not identified as
talent, and we don’t
create su cient
career-development
opportunities for
them.”
Deputy Group Senior
Vice President, Human
Resources, leading
European telco

10. F C P
• High-performing companies are 1.4 to 2.7 times more likely to provide development
programs for “emerging” as well as “high” potentials. They actively work to lever-
age and retain existing talent at both ends of the talent development chain.
They systematically define development requirements for high-potential
employees; for example, they maintain a list of critical assignments appropriate
for the development of high potentials much more o en than low-performing
companies do. High-performing companies also define talent more broadly—not
just in identifying emerging potentials but also in seeking and nurturing diverse,
complementary thinkers and those with deep functional expertise, rather than
just management track candidates.
• High-performing companies are 1.7 to 2.1 times more likely to o er career advance-
ment opportunities with clearly defined career tracks. High-performing companies
provide a broad menu of horizontal as well as vertical opportunities. Doing so
keeps employees satisfied and professionally fulfilled while also helping compa-
nies retain the full range of talent necessary for enterprise success.
With 27 global brands and €20.3
billion in 2011 sales, L’Oréal Group
dominates the global beauty-prod-
ucts market. And it has every
intention of remaining number one,
with a growth target for the next
decade of more than 1 billion new
customers.
The linchpin of its growth strategy is
building what the company calls its
“talent advantage.” L’Oréal has
adopted a strategic approach to devel-
oping its talent portfolio and allocat-
ing resources. Its purpose: to support
growth by ensuring a steady supply of
leaders and key competencies in
critical geographies.
Using quantitative models, HR and
business leaders analyze anticipat-
ed business needs—such as sources
of growth or expanded production—
to identify the company’s future
talent needs. They also examine
HR’s needs; for example, how much
onboarding will be required as a
result of recruitment e orts?
Projecting out five years, leaders
then calculate the number of people
needed by geography, function, and
managerial level. The modeling
pinpoints oversupplies and gaps,
enabling L’Oréal to take preventive
action. For example, it allows the
company to modulate the career
pace of certain employee groups
early enough to avoid frustrating
talent in the event of a slowdown—
or to accelerate it to fill any talent or
experience gaps that might arise.
HR also projects the costs and
potential return on investment of
various scenarios. “Talent planning
helps us to strategize growth and to
support our ongoing transforma-
tion,” says Jean-Claude Le Grand,
global senior vice president of
executive talent.
This supply-and-demand methodol-
ogy helps L’Oréal to e ciently
leverage its multifaceted talent
system, which is designed to boost
executive talent development. The
system involves the following:
HOW L’ORÉAL IS BUILDING A TALENT ADVANTAGE

11. T B C G
• High-performing companies are 2.9 times as o en better than their competition in
o ering a change of work location. Moreover, the number-one reason for workforce
relocation for high-performing companies is personal development—unlike low-perform-
ing companies, which use relocation primarily to fill local knowledge gaps. High-
performing companies actively foster employees’ individual development, and
relocation and job rotation are among the development opportunities they provide.
They recognize that beyond job stability and a good salary, today’s employee seeks
a fulfilling work experience as well as the opportunity for personal growth. In
particular, those employees from the so-called Millennial generation have greater
expectations and are more willing to leave employers that can’t meet them. As the
vice president of HR at a major media company says, “We believe that creating a
fast-paced, stimulating environment that fosters individuals’ growth is a much more
engaging environment to work in than one that is purely profit-oriented.”
Together, these quantified findings highlight what employee surveys tell us: a
variety of enriching talent-management programs and practices are the main
reason people stay with their employers—compensation alone won’t do.
• Incentivizing leaders to identify and
develop talent on their team. This
measure helps embed the talent
culture while promoting mentoring.
• Motivating talent to migrate to
strategic, high-growth zones by
linking career development opportu-
nities to these areas, through
proactive rotation and interna-
tional mobility.
• Appointing talent managers in
critical markets to reinforce local
recruiting, promote the employer
brand locally, and optimize
onboarding. This initiative is also
designed to minimize the high
turnover common in emerging
markets.
• Establishing talent incubators to help
feed the pipeline. Through special
yearlong assignments, talent
development is accelerated, and
people are placed in management
roles quickly.
• Enhancing career visibility and
leadership expectations by estab-
lishing clear, uniform definitions
of talent and performance
standards.
Among its many benefits, L’Oréal’s
talent-planning program reinforces
the business-HR partnership by
creating a common understanding of
the company’s major business
priorities and their HR implications.
As Jérôme Tixier, group HR director,
observes, “The focus and involve-
ment of our managers and HR is
what makes our company a true
talent builder.”

12. F C P
P M R : C N ,
M P I
Many high-performing companies link managers’ bonuses or other incentives with
business KPIs to ensure managers are aligned with company strategy and goals. But
these companies also know that performance management goes beyond ensuring
employee alignment. High-performing companies understand the importance of a
well-constructed, balanced performance-management system in motivating and
developing employees.
To foster—and sustain—excellent employee performance, companies need to
create the right incentives. Developing a culture of meritocracy is key. High-
performing companies recognize the value of fair, transparent measurement and
rewards systems in promoting such a culture.
• They have clear norms that drive performance—2.6 times as o en as low-perform-
ing companies. Employees understand clearly what constitutes superior perfor-
mance and, just as clearly, what is unacceptable. A performance management
system that is overly complicated or obscure, however, can hamper employee
engagement. Organizations that don’t clarify unacceptable performance—and
then surprise employees with repercussions—may engender ill will and risk
tarnishing the company’s reputation. And those that don’t clearly explain their
rewards system undermine workforce cohesiveness and even risk losing
valuable talent.
• High-performing companies have global performance-management standards in place
2.2 times as o en as low-performing ones. Although many corporate HR depart-
ments provide guidance on performance standards throughout their organiza-
tions, units continue to follow localized standards at most companies. High-per-
forming companies use state-of-the-art performance-management methods and
systems and ensure that these are adopted on a global basis.
In all the activities we studied, high-performing companies reward behavior, not
just results, to a greater degree than low-performing companies. And while they put
greater stock in performance management systems, they do not get mired in
process. They avoid bureaucratic or protracted review processes that can actually
allow problems to worsen. High-performing companies emphasize feedback and
open discussion, as well as more frequent, o en informal, reviews. These have the
added benefit of motivating employees.
Critical Mass Counts
It’s no news that being well-rounded in people management represents an invest-
ment in the company’s long-term success. But at many companies today, that
investment is at risk—even as talent risk has escalated. Before leaders yield to the
temptation to cut back on people spending, they must keep in mind that people
management has become an imperative.
The good news is that it’s not just an imperative; it’s an investment with a tangi-
ble, near-term return. As we’ve shown, the correlation between people capabilities
“We have a firmly
established perfor-
mance-management
process in place with
clear and transparent
performance criteria.
We apply it consis-
tently across the
entire organization.
This enables us to
continuously promote
our top performers
and, at the same
time, motivate and
manage all other
performance groups.”
HR Executive,
global telco

13. T B C G
and economic success is undeniable. People management mastery translates into
economic success—and competitive advantage.
But excelling in leadership development, talent management, and performance
management is not enough. Being a people company means doing more across the
entire spectrum of people management activities, from employer branding to
employee retention.
And critical mass matters: companies must be good at many activities, and they
must integrate those activities. Moreover, it’s not enough to carry out important
people-management activities in a step-by-step, linear fashion. Each critical topic,
and the critical activities it entails, needs to be carried out in parallel. There is an
integrated logic in how a company builds, for example, its talent management, lead-
ership development, and performance management e orts. So apply as many
levers as possible simultaneously. That’s the key to keeping the supply of talent and
leadership—along with economic performance—steady and sustainable.
N
1. See Winning Practices of Adaptive Leadership Teams, BCG Focus, April 2012.
2. See Global Talent Risk – Seven Responses, a report published by the World Economic Forum in collabo-
ration with BCG in 2011.
3. “Make Talent, Not War,” BCG article, December 2011; derived from Creating People Advantage 2011:
Time to Act—Certainties in Uncertain Times, BCG report, September 2011.
This study is a preview of the findings
of our forthcoming 2012 global
survey on people management,
which is part of the Creating People
Advantage series BCG has published
annually since 2007.1
It is also the
third global study produced in
partnership with the World Federa-
tion of People Management Associa-
tions (WFPMA). For the 2012 study,
we surveyed 4,288 respondents in
102 countries across a broad range of
industries, from consumer goods and
transportation to banking and health
care. From our list of 22 HR topics,
we asked companies to rate their
current capabilities on a scale of 1 to
5 (where 1 = least capable and 5 =
most capable); we then identified the
capability gaps between high- and
low-performing companies. To
determine the correlation between
people capabilities and economic
success, we also asked the survey
respondents to indicate their revenue
growth and average profit-margin
change from 2010 through 2011.2
The complete study results, along
with comprehensive analysis, will
appear in the full Creating People
Advantage report, to be published in
October 2012. Visit bcgperspectives.
com for further details.
N
1. The most recent Creating People Advantage
report, Time to Act: HR Certainties in Uncertain
Times, was published in September 2011.
2. Due to a technical adjustment, there were
two different response-category ranges used for
these questions (“10% to 20%” versus “10.1% to
20%”), which showed no impact on the results.
STUDY METHODOLOGY

14. F C P
About the Authors
Rainer Strack is a senior partner and managing director in the Düsseldorf o ce of The Boston
Consulting Group and the European leader of the firm’s Organization practice. He is a global topic
leader for HR and coleader of BCG’s Creating People Advantage research. You may contact him by
e-mail at strack.rainer@bcg.com.
Jean-Michel Caye is a senior partner and managing director in the firm’s Paris o ce. He is a
global topic leader for HR and coleader of BCG’s Creating People Advantage research. You may
contact him by e-mail at caye.jean-michel@bcg.com.
Carsten von der Linden is a project leader in BCG’s Munich o ce. You may contact him by
e-mail at vonderlinden.carsten@bcg.com.
Horacio Quiros is president of the World Federation of People Management Associations
(WFPMA) and a past president of the Argentine HR Association and the Interamerican Federation
of People Management Associations. He is also the corporate human resources director of Grupo
Clarin. You may contact him by e-mail at hquiros@grupoclarin.com.
Pieter Haen is secretary general of the World Federation of People Management Associations
(WFPMA), a past president of the European Association for People Management (EAPM), and
founder and president of the Duurstede Groep. You may contact him by e-mail at pieterhaen@
duurstedegroep.com.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to o er their sincere thanks to Christian Adler, Vinciane Beauchene,
David Bendig, Jacqueline Betz, Florian Grassl, Alexander Kluger, Stefanie Michor, Cleo Race,
Martin Scheunemann, Ulrich Schlattmann, and other BCG colleagues for contributing their
insights and for helping to dra this report. They would also like to acknowledge Jan Koch for her
writing and editing assistance, as well as Katherine Andrews, Gary Callahan, Sarah Davis, Oliver
Dost, Kim Friedman, Abigail Garland, Bernd Linde, and Sara Strassenreiter for their contribu-
tions to the report’s editing, design, and production.
For Further Contact
If you would like to discuss this report, please contact one of the authors.

15. To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcgperspectives.com.
Follow bcg.perspectives on Facebook and Twitter.
© The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. 2012. All rights reserved.
7/12